Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Lirri
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:53 pm UTC
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Lirri » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:20 pm UTC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31432024/ns ... business//

It's sad, she had to go to a second trial after a new trial was ordered by the judge. The judge decided he screwed up in giving jury instructions and made her sit through another trial. Her fine went from $222,000 to $1.92 mil. Even though the RIAA is trying to set a precedent, I'd love to see who actually is going to pay up in cases against families for 24 DAMN SONGS SHARED.

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Lumpy » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:24 pm UTC

Clearly, if we are going to go by the principle that the harder it is to catch a kind of criminal, the harder the punishment should be, in order to make an example of them instead of punishing the crimes themselves, then for consistency's sake there's a lot of law that needs going over.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Malice » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:41 pm UTC

Rough math ahead:

The actual impact of a potential risk is consequence * probability, yes?
Let's say there are 12 million P2P users (estimate from 2006; probably more today).
30,000 people have been sued in the past 5 years.
That's 1 quarter of 1%, or .25%.
.25% of (rounding up) 2 million dollars is $5,000.

Do you think that's enough of a deterrent, or what?
Image

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby The Reaper » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:47 pm UTC

I'd owe around $5,386,720,000. Fuck the RIAA.

That's 1/5 the GDP of Vermont. Seriously, fuck the RIAA.

More math. 80k$ will buy you 5333 CDs at 15$ a piece.
I think the RIAA may or may not have a wooden ship somewhere, with heaps of gold lying around. Something tells me its avoiding tariffs too......
Last edited by The Reaper on Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:01 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:54 pm UTC

Man, what the fuck ever happened to 'BEYOND a reasonable doubt'?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
'; DROP DATABASE;--
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:38 am UTC
Location: Midwest Alberta, where it's STILL snowy
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby '; DROP DATABASE;-- » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:20 am UTC

I'd really like to know where this money is supposed to go.
poxic wrote:You suck. And simultaneously rock. I think you've invented a new state of being.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby The Reaper » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:44 am UTC

'; DROP DATABASE;-- wrote:I'd really like to know where this money is supposed to go.
To the conartists

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Malice » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:46 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Man, what the fuck ever happened to 'BEYOND a reasonable doubt'?


As far as I know, that concept doesn't apply to civil suits, only criminal cases. *checks Wiki* Basically there are three levels. Normal civil suits, you only need a "preponderance of evidence", meaning 50+% (in other words, "it is likely"). There's a higher standard applied in some cases called "clear and convincing evidence", which is basically "it's really likely". And then there's "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is, "I'm pretty much certain", and which is only used for criminal cases.

--
'; DROP DATABASE;-- wrote:I'd really like to know where this money is supposed to go.


To the artists, of course! They'll each be getting an $80,000-per-song check in the mail.

...

Nah, I can't keep a straight face. The judgments or settlements for all these suits only go towards paying for more lawsuits.
Image

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby smw543 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:52 am UTC

It's pretty obvious that someone in that household did it, and that she was at least partially complicit (the fact that it was her username implies that at the very least she was the one who installed Kazaa.) Even if it was her kids, she's still legally liable (as were the parents of other pirates in past cases.) I do feel bad that a single mother of four is being hit up for almost $2 million, but I'm sure her legal fees have far exceeded the $3,500 average settlement she probably could have gotten, not to mention all the time she's wasted on this. I mainly feel bad for the kids that their mother decided to be "one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry." Yeah, yeah, the RIAA are jerks, and $1.92 million is ridiculous, but this kind of ruling isn't unprecedented. She should've left the "bravery" (seriously?) for someone who doesn't have four dependents.

It's so damn popular nowadays to dump on the RIAA, and I don't like them any more than the rest of you, but she broke the law, and as absurd as the consequences are, she knew what they would be if she kept fighting and lost. (And if she didn't know, then it was even more foolish of her to enter a legal battle without considering the worst case scenario--and this isn't even that, it could've been up to $150k per song.)
Princess Marzipan wrote:Man, what the fuck ever happened to 'BEYOND a reasonable doubt'?
Are you referring to: "Reynolds told the jury it’s "only logical" that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that’s what Kazaa was there for."? It's phrased poorly, but the odds of her having 1,700 songs available for sharing and never being chosen as a peer are probably akin to getting struck by lightning while a shark bites your leg... in Utah.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

User avatar
Psycho Goose
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 5:41 am UTC

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Psycho Goose » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:19 am UTC

This is exactly why deterrent-based punishment bugs me. The punishment should be all about: how much was screwed up? How can we un-screw it? How bad was this, really?
So if you drink my milkshake, perhaps you should buy me a new one. Maybe two. Heck, maybe even ten milkshakes.

But instead, they're bending the system to a kind of "how can we keep this from happening again, ever?" Which in theory I approve of, but that mindset has a way of ignoring something more important (this specific instance) and of dehumanizing those involved (she isn't a mother of four, she's an "example"). And of blowing things out of proportion.
So if you drink my milkshake, and I shoot you, will anybody ever drink my milkshake again? Not likely. But do you honestly deserve it?
I dunno. Maybe it was a really great milkshake. (I'm kinda thirsty, if you can't tell.)

So yes, they're farking donkeyholes. And I have a sneaking suspicion that this is just their way of trying to save themselves from the financial crisis. (Hey, maybe GM shoulda tried it!)

Also, if they sue her for far more than she is capable of paying, how much does she have to pay? Does she have to provide organ transplants for the RIAA's president? (Screw the artists -- they don't enter into this.)
Mother Superior wrote:Go to Checkov's guns on fifth. But be careful, any gun he shows you is liable to go off at some point while you're in the store.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:29 am UTC

smw543 wrote:I mainly feel bad for the kids that their mother decided to be "one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry." Yeah, yeah, the RIAA are jerks, and $1.92 million is ridiculous, but this kind of ruling isn't unprecedented. She should've left the "bravery" (seriously?) for someone who doesn't have four dependents.

Dude, fuck right the hell off with that attitude. Do you know ANYONE who can actually afford $1.92 million, or even just the original $220k? Maybe it's kind of worth it to pay a few thousand dollars in legal fees to avoid having pay HUNDREDS of thousands.

It's so damn popular nowadays to dump on the RIAA, and I don't like them any more than the rest of you, but she broke the law, and as absurd as the consequences are, she knew what they would be if she kept fighting and lost. (And if she didn't know, then it was even more foolish of her to enter a legal battle without considering the worst case scenario--and this isn't even that, it could've been up to $150k per song.)

Think about this argument. You're basically saying that whatever the law is, it is absolutely correct, and you should never fight it ever because it's the law. What about when it was illegal for black people to sit at the backs of buses? Or illegal for a gay couple to have sex because it was illegal under sodomy laws? Or hell, let's get trivial and go with marijuana. The law is pretty often wrong, because the law is pretty often constructed by people with their own selfish goals in mind who don't care about those who fall on the wrong of side of it through bad luck or happenstance or sheer disagreement.

Man, what the fuck ever happened to 'BEYOND a reasonable doubt'?
It's phrased poorly, but the odds of her having 1,700 songs available for sharing and never being chosen as a peer are probably akin to getting struck by lightning while a shark bites your leg... in Utah.

But 1676 of those songs weren't material to the trial. Only 24 of them are. I have tons of mp3s on my computer; pick 24 of them and then find a way to prove I shared that exact file.
Last edited by Princess Marzipan on Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:22 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby TheAmazingRando » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:37 am UTC

Songs cost a dollar to download, generally. Are there any cases besides file-sharing where any lawsuit's been won for 80,000 times the damages? Deterrent or no, that's fucking ridiculous.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby smw543 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:40 am UTC

Psycho Goose wrote:Also, if they sue her for far more than she is capable of paying, how much does she have to pay? Does she have to provide organ transplants for the RIAA's president? (Screw the artists -- they don't enter into this.)
The article wrote:Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle but she refused to name a figure.
It'll definitely be much more reasonable than $1.92m (that number really only exists for shock value), but you can be sure it'll be a hell of a lot more than if she had just tried to settle in the first place. (It never specifically said that she was given the same type of offer that thousands of others were, but it seemed pretty strongly implied. If, unlike thousands of others, she actually was denied a reasonable settlement, then I retract my last post, but I sincerely doubt that is the case. NINJA/EDIT: OK, I guess I have to address this now...)

@Princess Marzipan:
Spoiler:
First off, calm down, and cut it out with the quote sniping/ignoring key points. I specifically mentioned that I agree with the point that the punishment is extreme, but also that it's no excuse. My main point is that it was irresponsible of her to launch this fight when she had other obligations. And don't bring that hyperbolic nonsense into this (racism/homophobia.) People like Rosa Parks were actually fighting for their inalienable rights as human beings, not their right to steal shit on the internet. They were fighting the laws, not the punishments. To continue the example, Rosa Parks knew she faced serious consequences, and decided it was worth it because she thought it was right (and because she stood a chance at making a difference.) This woman, on the other hand, got busted and decided that she was willing to risk her own welfare as well as that of her children on the off chance that a stupid jury would take pity on her (the only way she could've won the case, based on the excerpts of the defense attorneys arguments.) As I read it, the only reason she was stuck with the $220k was because she decided to fight the original accusation. Again, I sincerely doubt they denied her the chance to make a small settlement that they gave thousands of others.

As for the reasonable doubt issue: as Malice mentioned, civil law doesn't require the same standard of proof as criminal law. Besides, the fact that MediaSentry was able to download the files (because they were in the shared folder) means that anyone could download them. With artists like "Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others" (implied to be amongst the 24 songs in question) it's pretty much absurd to suggest that there was no sharing. Further evidence in link'd articles below.
EDIT the second: I've Google'd this case further, and am rather shocked by the amount of info that article left out. This ars technica article is particularly incriminating: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars She lied under oath several times, including lying about having never heard of Kazaa before the trial "despite having written a paper on Napster in college—a paper in which she concluded that Napster's original incarnation was legal under US law." And the tereastarr user account was password protected. And she's not as destitute as the MSNBC article implies; apparently part of her defense was to show how much money she spent at Best Buy on movies and video games.

Also, legal bills=$130K and counting...

Most important is another quote from RIAA Spokesperson Cara Duckworth: "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so." I think this supports the already reasonable assumption that she received the same offer as everyone else and turned it down in order to "fight the good fight."

Please don't make me research this further, I'd like to maintain at least some sympathy for this woman.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:24 am UTC

So basically trying to wrangle more money out of this woman than she's likely made in her entire life is okay because She Was Wrong?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
bombast
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:07 am UTC

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby bombast » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:41 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:So basically trying to wrangle more money out of this woman than she's likely made in her entire life is okay because She Was Wrong?


No. It's only that she should have seen this coming. If a pedestrian sees a 100 dollar bill laying on a train track, sees a train is coming, and still jumps on the rail to get the bill, whos fault is it that the poor sap got hit with a train? Perhaps not the best metaphor, but I hope you see my point.

EDIT: Also, she wont even pay a fraction of that 2mil. She'll file a type of bankruptcy and pay a few thousand dollars.
Last edited by bombast on Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blokey
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:17 am UTC
Location: Lahndahn, Merrie Olde Englande

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Blokey » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:43 am UTC

I guess you could say she's not such a Jammie dodger after all.
Image
Only the tone of your own inner monologue separates a reading of superciliousness or philanthropy - Felstaff

Duban
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm UTC

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Duban » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:53 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:So basically trying to wrangle more money out of this woman than she's likely made in her entire life is okay because She Was Wrong?

More like "because one could make a reasonable arguement that she might have been wrong". Not to mention the fact that they couldn't specifically pin it on any 1 family member anyways.
It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby TheAmazingRando » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:56 am UTC

They may have been willing to settle from day one, but what they would have settled for still wouldn't have been anywhere near reasonable. This is a dying industry milking everything they can out of anyone they can, and it's preposterous that the law supports them in it.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby The Reaper » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:00 am UTC

smw543 wrote:If, unlike thousands of others, she actually was denied a reasonable settlement, then I retract my last post, but I sincerely doubt that is the case.
If they were willing to settle for $24 or hell, even $240, then yes, she should have. Otherwise fuck them.

Also, it's not stealing. The original product remains where it was.

Spoiler:
1245214475885.jpg
1245214475885.jpg (17.3 KiB) Viewed 3651 times

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby ivnja » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:05 am UTC

The Reaper wrote:Also, it's not stealing. The original product remains where it was.

It's like sneaking into a ballgame. Your doing so doesn't affect the game, but it's still stealing revenue from the stadium/team/whatever. It's more akin to theft of services than to stealing a car.
Hi you.
she/her

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby The Reaper » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:08 am UTC

ivnja wrote:
The Reaper wrote:Also, it's not stealing. The original product remains where it was.

It's like sneaking into a ballgame. Your doing so doesn't affect the game, but it's still stealing revenue from the stadium/team/whatever. It's more akin to theft of services than to stealing a car.
Sneaking into a ballgame steals space. This isn't even stealing space. This is like watching the ballgame on open air TV carrier waves.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:15 am UTC

Duban wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:So basically trying to wrangle more money out of this woman than she's likely made in her entire life is okay because She Was Wrong?

More like "because one could make a reasonable arguement that she might have been wrong". Not to mention the fact that they couldn't specifically pin it on any 1 family member anyways.

I'm not arguing that it's *right* to download music illegally. But for fuck's sake, if someone comes after you for it, it's at LEAST thousands of dollars. What about a speeding ticket, where you're...y'know, endangering lives? A couple hundred.

The fact that there's a fine isn't the problem; it's how egregious the fine is, and the invasiveness of the methods the RIAA uses to locate their targets.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby ivnja » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:17 am UTC

The Reaper wrote:
ivnja wrote:
The Reaper wrote:Also, it's not stealing. The original product remains where it was.

It's like sneaking into a ballgame. Your doing so doesn't affect the game, but it's still stealing revenue from the stadium/team/whatever. It's more akin to theft of services than to stealing a car.
Sneaking into a ballgame steals space. This isn't even stealing space. This is like watching the ballgame on open air TV carrier waves.

Ok, so we'll change the analogy a little. Guy buys a ticket to the game, sneaks in a camera with which he somehow broadcasts footage of the game out to whoever is close enough to pick up the signal. No space is stolen, but the stadium/team is still being robbed of revenue (from the people who would have paid for a ticket but now don't have to).

Edit: pwned, or something. I disagree still, but I'll let it go.
Last edited by ivnja on Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:28 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Hi you.
she/her

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:22 am UTC

Nougat's First Law of Internet RIAA Discussion:

As the length of a thread dealing with the RIAA increases, the probability that someone will introduce an analogy (that fails to correctly illustrate music piracy yet succeeds in diverting discussion from the RIAA to the particulars of said flawed analogy) approaches 1.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby The Reaper » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:25 am UTC

ivnja wrote:Ok, so we'll change the analogy a little. Guy buys a ticket to the game, sneaks in a camera with which he somehow broadcasts footage of the game out to whoever is close enough to pick up the signal. No space is stolen, but the stadium/team is still being robbed of revenue (from the people who would have paid for a ticket but now don't have to).
That's not stopping seats from being filled. The team is still making the same amount of money they would have made regardless. The artists are still making the same amount of money they would have made regardless, and the RIAA is just going after people to perpetuate their own existence, while at the same time possibly lowering the number of people that would listen to and propagate the artists music for fear of retribution. For a good number of people, if they like the game, they're still going to buy tickets and go watch it. For a good number of people, if they like the music, they're going to go out and pay for it regardless.

EDIT: 1.

User avatar
bombast
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:07 am UTC

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby bombast » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:30 am UTC

While I pay for what I want, I find that an increasing amount of people I know get all their media (movies, games, music, etc) for free. I too once thought these lawsuits were dumb, but because 80% of the people I meet steal EVERYTHING, I'm starting to see the problem.

Is the number ridiculous? Is the manner they go about sueing retarded? Yes, but I can see WHY they do it. The WAY is just wrong.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby smw543 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:39 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:So basically trying to wrangle more money out of this woman than she's likely made in her entire life is okay because She Was Wrong?
No. I've said it like five times now, no. Imagine Billy tells you, "If you kick my dog, I'll cut off your hand." Cutting off your hand is a pretty disproportionate punishment for giving his dog a bruise, but if you go ahead and do it anyways, then I can only have so much pity for you. Yeah, Billy is being a dick, and yeah, it's not a fair punishment, but you were warned. Also, you kicked a dog, which is a Bad Thing to do. (Also, when Billy found out, he gave you the option of taking a punch in the face instead, which is still unfair, but you insisted on fighting him, so he kicked your ass because he's twice your size, and then he cut your hand off anyway.)[/huge, sprawling, flawless metaphor]

And stealing music/movies/etc. is stealing. I won't lie and claim I've never done it, but I don't create complex self-delusions about why there's nothing wrong with it. (I only create simple self-delusions, like pirating a movie if my original copy is scratched :wink: )
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:44 am UTC

smw543 wrote: but I don't create complex self-delusions about why there's nothing wrong with it.

And neither did I. Ever.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby smw543 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:17 am UTC

That was aimed at The Reaper et al. (i.e.: those claiming that there was nothing wrong with stealing music.)
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Telchar » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:22 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:But 1676 of those songs weren't material to the trial. Only 24 of them are. I have tons of mp3s on my computer; pick 24 of them and then find a way to prove I shared that exact file.


I wouldn't have to, that's actually the point. I would just have to prove that it is above a 50% chance that you were used as a peer. I think the award is asinine, but the decision is solid.

I'm not arguing that it's *right* to download music illegally. But for fuck's sake, if someone comes after you for it, it's at LEAST thousands of dollars. What about a speeding ticket, where you're...y'know, endangering lives? A couple hundred.

The fact that there's a fine isn't the problem; it's how egregious the fine is, and the invasiveness of the methods the RIAA uses to locate their targets.


Again, your conflating criminal and civil justice. Speeding is criminal. Downloading music is criminal. Suing somone for speeding and killing your dog is civil. Suing somone for allowing other people to d/l music from you and costing them money is civil. Your analogy is bad. I do agree, again, that the fine is terrible however.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:27 am UTC

Telchar wrote:Again, your conflating criminal and civil justice. Speeding is criminal. Downloading music is criminal. Suing somone for speeding and killing your dog is civil. Suing somone for allowing other people to d/l music from you and costing them money is civil. Your analogy is bad. I do agree, again, that the fine is terrible however.

Actually...if there's a suit because speeding got a dog run over, then the suit isn't because of JUST speeding. It's because the speeding resulted in otherwise avoidable loss. That's not the way of it with p2p music piracy.

The industry has no way to separate which transfers were to people who didn't buy the album because they already had it for free, which were to people who because of hearing the free song decided to invest in the band, or those who would never have paid for the free song regardless.

The civil court system has a pretty good way to distinguish which incidents of speeding resulted in dead dogs, however.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Telchar » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:33 am UTC

Violating Nougat's First law of Internet RIAA Discussion:

Only if you can prove the dog died after it was run over and not before. And you're talking about crimes with physical evidence vs patent law. The standard of proof is still the same (50%+ sure) and in this case the RIAA was able to convince a jury that it was 50% likely, or greater, that this persons 24 songs had been used illegally. I think that's extremely likely anyway. It would be interesting if we could see statistics of how much p2p downloading is not illegal, but people generally don't fess up to that.

Also, I think the "I own the CD but wan't to DL the song from another person rather than ripping it off the CD" arguement is really bizzare. While it may statistically true in some cases, I think it would represent a vast minority of cases.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Lord Aurora
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:14 am UTC

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Lord Aurora » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:41 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:The civil court system has a pretty good way to distinguish which incidents of speeding resulted in dead dogs, however.
...which is...? You give the civil court system a lot more credit than it's due.
Princess Marzipan wrote:The industry has no way to separate which transfers were to people who didn't buy the album because they already had it for free, which were to people who because of hearing the free song decided to invest in the band, or those who would never have paid for the free song regardless.
But it does have a way to separate illegally obtaining a song from legally obtaining it.
Decker wrote:Children! Children! There's no need to fight. You're ALL stupid.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:10 pm UTC

Lord Aurora wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:The civil court system has a pretty good way to distinguish which incidents of speeding resulted in dead dogs, however.
...which is...? You give the civil court system a lot more credit than it's due.
...it's called "did the dog die because this asshole ran it over while speeding?"


Princess Marzipan wrote:The industry has no way to separate which transfers were to people who didn't buy the album because they already had it for free, which were to people who because of hearing the free song decided to invest in the band, or those who would never have paid for the free song regardless.
But it does have a way to separate illegally obtaining a song from legally obtaining it.
Right, but there is no actual logical justification for the damages they sue for. None.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Roĝer
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:36 pm UTC
Location: Many worlds, but mostly Copenhagen.
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Roĝer » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:33 pm UTC

What if every song was downloaded from her 80 000 times? Except that the RIAA would have to prove that instead of being awarded a random sum of money.
Ik ben niet koppig, ik heb gewoon gelijk.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Indon » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:44 pm UTC

And to think, that's only slightly more than half the legal limit for damages per song.

That woman might as well walk out of that courtroom and make a beeline for the nearest bankruptcy court to schedule something.

Also: Piracy is no more stealing than my mother recording a TV program on the VCR, and then skipping the commercials, is stealing. She, too, uses technological measures to obtain media without paying the poorly-quantified 'price' for that media - the only difference is that the local Fox station (or whatever network TV station) isn't going to sue her for a gazillion dollars for doing it.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
bombast
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:07 am UTC

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby bombast » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:52 pm UTC

TV is exempt because of some law (fair use? Nah... I can't remember).

Piracy is stealing. Someone made a song for the express purpose of making money off of it... you take the song for free. How some people don't see this as stealing, I will never understand.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:59 pm UTC

bombast wrote:TV is exempt because of some law (fair use? Nah... I can't remember).

Piracy is stealing. Someone made a song for the express purpose of making money off of it... you take the song for free. How some people don't see this as stealing, I will never understand.

Stealing means that something has been taken and needs to be replaced. There is no actual loss when someone downloads a song. Only a theoretical, unprovable, and by some studies non-existent potential future loss of profit. It may still be wrong depending on why someone does it, but it is most definitely not stealing by its usual definition.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby MartianInvader » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:16 pm UTC

The analogy I like:

Imagine Homer Simpson sitting on top of a huge mountain of sugar. He guards the sugar zealously, as he sells it for his sugarman business, but sometimes, when he lets his guard down for that split-second, an uppity tea-drinker comes by and steals a pinch. Now each person that does this is not committing a terrible crime, but as this begins happening more and more the mountain of sugar starts shrinking, and Homer's business is in danger of failing.

So Homer starts guarding his mountain of sugar with a shotgun. He still can't catch most of the thieves, but when he catches one, he shoots him. This is certainly disproportionate, but its the only thing Homer can think of to protect his business. After all, the strong must protect the sweet.

Is there some way for Homer to protect his sugar without shooting mostly-innocent people? I don't know.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Mom to Pay $80,000 Per Pirated Song

Postby The Reaper » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:40 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:The analogy I like:

Imagine Homer Simpson sitting on top of a huge mountain of sugar. He guards the sugar zealously, as he sells it for his sugarman business, but sometimes, when he lets his guard down for that split-second, an uppity tea-drinker comes by and steals a pinch. Now each person that does this is not committing a terrible crime, but as this begins happening more and more the mountain of sugar starts shrinking, and Homer's business is in danger of failing.

So Homer starts guarding his mountain of sugar with a shotgun. He still can't catch most of the thieves, but when he catches one, he shoots him. This is certainly disproportionate, but its the only thing Homer can think of to protect his business. After all, the strong must protect the sweet.

Is there some way for Homer to protect his sugar without shooting mostly-innocent people? I don't know.

In this case, homer is actually losing sugar.

If someone came along and copied his pile of sugar using excess matter from a white hole, this is more what its like.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests